Less explaining, more asking this time around.
The Ombudsman Asks: What do you look for in a game review?
Are you looking for information about games you haven't played or opinions on ones you have? Are you looking for someone to confirm your opinions or challenge them? Do you want technical information, informed opinion, scholarly analysis, cultural reading, or something else entirely? Do you look to one source exclusively or a variety of opinions? Do you like numerical scores, letter grades or no quantitiative measure at all?
I'll be working late helping with election night on Tuesday, so don't expect a post. I expect to be back Wednesday with a post on what is now old news, at least in Internet terms.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I look primarily to X-Play on G4TechTV for my video game reviews. I like numerical scores, since it makes it easy to compare two games and gives me a general idea if the game is worthwhile (letter grades remind me too much of school). I like informed opinion about the game, such as how it rates among others of its genre, innovations, and how much fun it is and I also like seeing the little quirks that the game has. Reviews are enjoyable whether or not I have played the game; I don't have a preference either way. As towards challenging my opinion, I respect other opinions, but reviews are designed to help me decide whether or not to buy a game (as well as to entertain me). So, that said, I prefer an opinion that would mesh with my own, but as long as it's entertaining, it's all good.
ReplyDeleteSincerely,
Michael Fan
Info on games I haven't played or opinions on ones I have:
ReplyDeleteI'm into games. I like hearing about games I'm interested in and not interested in. If I've actually bought one, I surely like to read that others like it too so it assuages any feelings of buyer's remorse.
Confirm opinions or challenge:
Again, both. Everyone likes affirmation, and I think people want to believe that games are good. However, it is critical that we find out what people don't like about games that we really anticipate, or that we play and enjoy because that helps us become better consumers and ultimately improves the quality of games overall.
Tehnical, informed opinion, scholarly, cultural?:
In my reviews, I like technical info (framerate, features, graphic techniques) and informed opinion (comparisons, features from other games/genres). Scholarly analysis, cultural analysis - these I would be interested in as parts of features.
One source or a variety?:
Metacritic.com is my friend.
Grading system:
I like a 100 point scale. I think it's imperative to have fine disctinctions between vast amounts of similar games. If I have 40 bucks to spend on a third person platformer, I want to know if Jak and Daxter, Mario, or Rachet should get my money. If they're all graded A, that doesn't help me. (ok, yeah, I'm gonna get all of 'em...but that's not the point!)
The type of review that I'm looking for depends on the genre of game that's being reviewed. For rhythm games and fighters, I usually will have played the game before any mag reviews it, so I'm looking for an in-depth analysis of the game that, even if I don't agree with it, will at least make me think. Unfortunately, especially for fighters, reviews tend to be so uninformed, surface level and superficial that they aren't entertaining to read; they're just frustrating and a little depressing. Since the only purpose of my reading them is entertainment, I tend to avoid them altogether. If a mag was to actually offer high level, technical reviews of fighting games, however, you can bet that I'd subscribe to it in an instant.
ReplyDeleteFor other genres, the main point of reading the review is to decide if a game is worth buying. I'm looking for an informed opinion with a good description of the gameplay, and a numerical score (preferably out of at least 10). I look at a variety of sources, but the one I tend to trust the most is GMR. Their reviews aren't hugely in depth, but their opinions tend to agree with mine. I like that they are willing to give bad reviews to bad games, no matter how much hype they game got. Their Manhunt review made me smile. I also like their better than/not as good as comparisons, so that you can know exactly how good a game is compared to its direct competition in the genre.
-Jeremy Marcus
"I like a 100 point scale. I think it's imperative to have fine disctinctions between vast amounts of similar games. If I have 40 bucks to spend on a third person platformer, I want to know if Jak and Daxter, Mario, or Rachet should get my money. If they're all graded A, that doesn't help me. (ok, yeah, I'm gonna get all of 'em...but that's not the point!)"
ReplyDeleteI find comments like this interesting.
So what is the difference between a 92 and a 93, particularly when the score is from different reviewers? Or hell, how about an 83 and an 87?
If you line up a bunch of games side-to-side, is it that meaningful to say Game X is 1% better than Game Y? By what criteria? By what measure? What data was used?
Ratings are totally arbitrary, and the greater the scale, the more arbitrary they become. Just because they pretend to have more meaning doesn't give them more meaning.
Regardless, the rating is irrelevant without the context provided by the text. That 93 might denote a better game than the 92, but if it's qualified, i.e. the text says, "But only Star Trek fans who hate Star Wars will like it," that sorta changes how the reader would perceive that number in relation to the other game.
In a world where graphics and preview hype are the more important things in a gamer's mind I want reviews to challange my opnions. Example I buyed WWE DoR for the GC. I liked it, like a 7.5 to 8, so I readed the reviews and I found the I'm more on the EGM side of the reviews which were on the 6.5 scale than the GI side with a 8.25. Why? Because EGM talked about the issue I have problems with (short story mode and cheating AI reverse) and GI talked a lot of the good things of the game like it was preview.
ReplyDeleteAbout scores: It the same for me. But there are some flaws like Xplay's (G4TechTV) review scores. Great reviews, some of the best and detail reviews (especially when compared to the same channel's Jugment Day) But the 1-5 stars score system are a little flawed. They don't have a 1/2 star in the system, so some of the reviews look better or worse than they say in the review.
Most of the time, I am looking for information about a game that I have not played. Scholarly analysis of video games interests me, but only as a sub-hobby of its own. We are talking about optical discs that cost fifty bucks a pop. “Buy!” versus “Don’t Buy!” writing might not be very intellectually stimulating, but it does help to answer an important question.
ReplyDeleteI prefer numerical scores, and I find Metacritic to be a great resource, though I often examine the opinions of Gamespot and EGM in greater detail. Gamespot is stingy, making their nine-point-anything scores very intriguing, while EGM tends to mirror the opinion of average gamers.
However, I believe that reviews are tricky when it comes to hyped releases. Most hype comes from the gaming media, and they are extremely hesitant to contradict their excitement unless the game amounts to unimaginable trash. Huge disappointments like Enter the Matrix get their due, but an anticipated title only needs to check in at the 8.0 level in order to score a 9.0 or above. If a game is in the headlines for a while, then receives praise and high scores upon release, I find that searching the reviews for quick blurbs about small problems usually indicates a larger flaw that no one in the gaming media will fully acknowledge until the sequel is announced.
I want experiences. By now we should be able to rest assured that the presentation (graphics, sound, control) will be fairly solid. I want to know about how immersive the game is, how the story goes (keeping spoilers to a minimum) and I don't want hype. Just some impressions and feelings. And keep the length short!
ReplyDeleteI just want more criticism in game reviews. I see too much gushy, hype driven crap these days that passes for a review. In fact, let's do away with "reviews" and move more into the area of "critiques".
ReplyDeleteThe technical stuff doesn't really interest me either, if a game I'm interested in is playable without too many glitches then I'll probably play it. I want to know how it felt to play. I want to know honest opinions too, how it made the person reviewing it feel.
Numbers are redundant too. Like someone else was saying, what's the difference between a 90 and a 92? I don't really like how most mainstream magazines and website concentrate on trying to quanitify something such as a videogame that is essentially unquantifiable. There's too many variables involved in creating experiences that differ so vastly from person to person that trying to tack a number score onto that somehow feels like it cheapens it.
What do I look for in game reviews? I don't really know. I can tell you what I'm not looking for though. I guess I'd like to see more videogame reviews being done the way Roger Ebert reviews movies. Someone who knows their stuff well enough to make an educated opinion on it, and who has had enough experience with to run it through their own personal filter and produce results that provoke thought rather than attemtp to "report" the "facts".
-Mr. Mechanical
i wish today's game reviews were FAR more detailed than they are now. actually, i hate the way that most game magazines will have huge multi-page spreads for a preview, yet only a small, tiny narrow column for a review. i would love to see those ratios reversed...
ReplyDelete"i wish today's game reviews were FAR more detailed than they are now."
ReplyDeleteFor real. I don't know how a magazine that tries to cram 3 reviews - and screenshots for each - all on the same page can provide any worthwhile information. Maybe some magazines have no choice because they're trying to cover 3 consoles, the Gameboy, and PC, and there's just too many games (but then why do I see seperate reviews of, say, Splinter Cell for Xbox, PS2, and GameCube all in the same magazine? Consolidate them, mention the minor differences in a few words, and use the extra space for more depth). Because PC only mags usually use a page or more per game, they tend to be a whole lot better. All magazines are guilty of using humungous screenshots where useful text could be.
And text, along with a (small) screenshot or two, is really all that's useful. I say ditch the scoring systems altogether. No stars, no percentages, and no thumbs up. A good review will walk me through a sample of the game, highlight the flaws and noteworthy features, and ultimately give me a good idea of what it would be like to play. From that I can determine well enough if I'd like it, and the 'score' will only be misleading. I find most PC reviewers, and some console reviewers, do the job well.